From: Ted.Held at hstna.com on 2001.11.05 at 20:12:12(7737)I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss
of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not
well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big
following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I
had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the
beginning.

I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss
of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not
well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big
following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I
had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the
beginning.

Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements.
ted.held@hstna.com

From: Ted.Held at hstna.com on 2001.11.06 at 13:02:04(7750)Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of
habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort
or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is
basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying
this is science.

I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss
of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not
well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big
following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I
had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the
beginning.

Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements.
ted.held@hstna.com

From: Jonathan Ertelt jonathan.ertelt at vanderbilt.edu> on 2001.11.06 at 16:36:50(7757)>Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of
>habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort
>or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is
>basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying
>this is science.
>

Ted,

As a matter of fact, more than likely the majority of the "big dinosaurs"
died off due to a sudden an extreme loss of habitat - at the end of the
Cretaceous period, due to the earth's colliding with a large asteroid
resulting in loss of sunlight, global warming, acid-rain, volcanos. etc.
This is based on the evidence so far presented and as such, is referred to
as scientific theory, though it is not without problems and questions still
unanswered. The more recent ice age, which caused massice extinctions,
could also be said to be due to impressive loss of habitat, habitat and
ecosystem being a combination of biotic and abiotic forces. Other
extinctions due to climatic change, or sudden change in sea level, would
also suggest a dramatic shift in habitats.

Most mutations die out because they fail in the way of reproductive
fittness or superiority, and species have certainly gone the same route,
with the loss of a major food source or pollinator and the lack of the
right mutation at the right time in order to "adapt." However, it would
crertainly be safe to say that in recent history, i.e. since man came into
the picture in a big way, there has been an impressive increase in
extinctions, and much of that has been due to loss of habitat. Certainly
the arguments can be made.

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.06 at 16:37:01(7758)Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of
habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort
or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is
basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying
this is science.

I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss
of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not
well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big
following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I
had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the
beginning.

The Do-do? Passenger pigeon? Stellar`s sea cow?? The giant Auk?? ALMOST
the American buffalo? The whooping cranes?? The Tasmanian marsupial
'tiger'? Need a few more?? Keep up with a 'changeable world"??? Surely
you jest---'pave paradise and put up a parking lot', and I guess we have to
expect all the plants and animals to then 'change' to be able to live on a
barren expanse of cement???

>>Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss of
habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort
or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is
basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in saying
this is science.

I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by loss
of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just not
well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a big
following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish I
had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
include all "species", including the millions that have perished since the
beginning.

Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements.
ted.held@hstna.com

From: "Ron Iles" roniles at eircom.net> on 2001.11.06 at 16:37:29(7760)During
three BILLION years of
Evolution less advanced & inappropriately specialised
kinds were SLOWLY replaced by more advanced kinds.. Except for
simpler kinds which could adapt very fast, sudden catastrophes &
cataclysms intermittently delayed or set back Evolution. Over
most of Modern Man's three MILLION years he was part of that Evolution in stable
dynamic equilibrium with other kinds. But increasingly
over the past two centuries, when he was powered by machines, & the past
twenty years when you could argue he used & is manipulated by mind machines,
most other kinds on earth have been subject to his mushrooming
cataclysms. Thousands of times more kinds have been made extinct
in the past century than in the entire period since Ape Man first walked
upright. Please look at the Red Book of Endangered
Species. You are right in saying that these "could not keep up with
the changing world" = the cataclysms of Man. Few "Higher Forms" of
Life could, and far from being "failures of one sort or another" modern wild
kinds were the glorious successes of over three BILLION YEARS of
Evolution. Barring total Planet sterilisation, an optimistic scenario is
that that Man, a "Higher Form" of Life, psycho-socially & environmentally
will be a victim of his own cataclysm alongside other Higher Forms. And
the most adaptable "Lower Life" will take over & Evolution will be restored
probably without his inabilities to adapt to them. If he is
not capable of achieving concord for himself within a stable dynamic equilibrium
with all other successful kinds, then Man is certainly "a failure of one
sort or another".

I was dealing with Man's Posterity after temporarily suspending
Evolution of Life on this Planet.

(The following immortal words by one of your simple but advanced
unspecialised Native peoples who lived in stable dynamic equilibrium with
Evolution on the Planet like other Native Peoples - Would you call of them
failures? Your Chief Seattle said - 1842 I think?) "What will
happen to the Spirit of Man when all the great Beasts have gone" We are
surely in the midst of knowing the answer now?

To: "Multiple recipients of
list AROID-L"
Sent: Tuesday, November 06,
2001 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: Extinction and
Loss of Habitat
Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss
ofhabitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one
sortor another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This
isbasic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in
sayingthis is
science.

"Ron
Iles"

To: Multiple recipients of list
AROID-L

m.net>

Sent by:
cc:

aroid-l@mobot. Fax
to:

org
Subject: Re: Extinction and Loss of
Habitat

11/06/01
11:25

AM

Please
respond

to
aroid-l

Ted!You must be joking?Ron-----
Original Message -----From: To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12
AMSubject: Extinction and Loss of HabitatI take exception to
the statement that most extinctions are caused by lossof habitat. Surely
some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But newpredation, disease, and
plain old climate alteration must be right upthere. And then there is the
probable fact that some species are just notwell evolved - failures, in
other words. I think habitat loss gets a bigfollowing since it is an obvious
factor in large animal extinctions,particularly those of recent times. You
know, the warm fuzzies. I wish Ihad the Book of Life and could review the
numbers on this that wouldinclude all "species", including the millions that
have perished since thebeginning.Just a skeptic about sweeping
pronouncements.ted.held@hstna.com

Loss of habitat is another way of saying some parts of the world are
changing too fast
for some plants/animals to evolve to accommodate the change.

I think I am also safe in saying this is science.

Ray
GRSJr@Juno.com

On Tue, 6 Nov 2001 15:02:05 -0600 (CST) Ted.Held@hstna.com writes:
>
>Am I missing something? Did the big dinosaurs die off because of loss
>of
>habitat? Most species have died out because they are failures of one
>sort
>or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world. This is
>basic Darwin and modern permutations thereof. I think I am safe in
>saying
>this is science.
>
>
>
>
> "Ron Iles"
>
>
>of list AROID-L
> m.net>
>
> Sent by: cc:
>
> aroid-l@mobot. Fax to:
>
> org Subject: Re: Extinction
>and Loss of Habitat
>
>
>
>
> 11/06/01 11:25
>
> AM
>
> Please respond
>
> to aroid-l
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ted!
>
>You must be joking?
>
>Ron
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From:
>To: "Multiple recipients of list AROID-L"
>Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 4:12 AM
>Subject: Extinction and Loss of Habitat
>
>
>
>I take exception to the statement that most extinctions are caused by
>loss
>of habitat. Surely some, maybe many are in the large scheme. But new
>predation, disease, and plain old climate alteration must be right up
>there. And then there is the probable fact that some species are just
>not
>well evolved - failures, in other words. I think habitat loss gets a
>big
>following since it is an obvious factor in large animal extinctions,
>particularly those of recent times. You know, the warm fuzzies. I wish
>I
>had the Book of Life and could review the numbers on this that would
>include all "species", including the millions that have perished since
>the
>beginning.
>
>Just a skeptic about sweeping pronouncements.
>ted.held@hstna.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Emphatically YES!!!!! A Meteor hit the planet or some other major upheaval
caused global changes that afected each and every habitat on the planet.
This was the ULTIMATE habitat loss example. This was on a planetary scale,
rather than being on a minor scale for a given species.

I would have said that Dinosaurs were a good example of how habitat loss
affects everything, rather than an example of how it doesn't.

>Most species have died out because they are failures of one sort
>or another or are not able to keep up with a changeable world.

I assume therefore that you feel Dinosaurs were one such failure because
they weren't able to cope with climate (and habitat) change due to a
planetary extinction event. They existed in domination of this planet for
over 100 Million years before whatever caused the planetary change (This
statement is not meant to step on any toes of those religions who do not
believe in evolution.... please let us not go there!). I don't call that
an evolutionary dead-end!!

Been a Dinosaur lover since way back, which is why I thought I'd bring this
up. As I said, they are the ultimate example of the affects of Habitat
Loss!! Shows just how dependant EVERYTHING is on its habitat and how
catastrophic the loss of it's habitat is to it.

From: Eric_L_._Schmidt/LEU/CYS/Orlando at priv.ci.orlando.fl.us.ci.orlando.fl.us on 2001.11.07 at 13:20:13(7775)Man's greed and short sightedness is causing major habitat disruption
across the globe and is causing the biggest era of extinctions since the
late Cretaceous Period. If not for the infamous asteroid slamming the
Earth, dinosaurs would still be roaming. That is unless one or more species
developed an intelligence in the 65 million years since the extinction and
raped the earth as man is doing now.

Dinosaurs were an extremely adaptable animals as a whole. They did not die
out because they were an "evolutionary dead-end". It is possible that there
are dinosaurs who could have survived the cataclysm still alive today; in
the jungles of equatorial Africa, South America, and the oceans. If so then
they are even more successful than ever thought. It is a controversial
subject but then look at the coelacanth. A fish that supposedly died out
around 100 million years ago but found alive in several Indian Ocean
locations.

there are plants like that too; Cycads, Metasequoia, Ginkgo, Wollemi Pine
and the tree (can't remember the exact name) in the Proteaceae Family that
was discovered still alive in Australia after only being known from
fossils.